Connect with us

Blog: Syria

There were some very strong
signals over the
weekend that the United States might have been seriously considering, or even
imminently prepared to launch, a series of limited strikes against Syria, most
likely cruise missiles. (Washington
Post, Aug. 26)

President Obama is weighing a military strike
against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as
punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while
keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil
war, according to senior administration officials. (Washington Post, Aug. 26)

In an
interview with The Associated Press in Damascus, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister
Faisal Mikdad said airstrikes or other action against Syria would also trigger
"chaos" and threaten worldwide peace and security. (CBS News, Aug.
26)

Has there been a time in recent years when U.S. use of
military force has not escalated the level of violence and death in a nation?

There seems little doubt that hundreds of people were
victims of poisonous gas in Syria last week. There is evidence that the
government of Syria holds such chemical weapons. However, can we prove without
a doubt that it was the government that released the gas? Is there some chance
that it was some rebel group hoping to escalate the violence, taking and using
the weapons?

And, what will be accomplished by military action against
Syria? Who will be harmed? Will those who made the decision be the ones harmed
by our retaliation? I fear the victims of retaliation would be people such as
those already killed by the chemical weapons.